random terms (part 0)

So I was thinking about "the peter principle revisted" and government.

In particular, I was thinking about the conclusion from the original paper that in a sufficient level of ignorance the random advancement is the one that maximizes performance of the organization.

I think that, in general, politicians are so bad at actually governing that they are more harm than good.  They are literally and truly the inmates running the asylum.  We have the Joker in charge and he is doing such a bang-up job that he seriously considers electing himself king.  The next joker on the menu isn't scheduled to be "less bad" as much as having slightly more good.  We have spent so long picking the lesser of two evils instead of the good that there is no good left.

Instead of whining, one should come up with a solution.  So here is a solution: randomize.

Of course we can't randomize the election - that would put non-psychopath non-sellouts into power.  The plutocracy would not like such a thing.  They spend $5 billion to elect a president ONLY because they will get more than $5 billion from having their man as president.  That is why it works that way.  Someone likely made a few tens of billions for paying for the re-election campaigns. 

We can randomize the terms.  If they are in power for a random time, then that changes two critical things: their ability to collude, and the return on investment of the controllers of the plutocrats.

Right now the senators spend 50% of their time woo-ing donors.  That means something profound.  If they were robots, not humans, that would mean that serving the public good is equal in importance to their re-election.  The problem is that after spending 50% of the time wooing, they spend some part of the "legislating" time serving the interests as well.  This suggests that an average of 75% of their time and efforts are about the donors, all else being equal.  Serving the public good is strongly subservient to re-election.  There is no public good, only publicity.

Without measurement there is no control - Cayley-Hamilton is an axiom in control systems engineering.  There has been no measure of, or control of, public service by "public servants" therefore it has been corrupted.  Whatever solution is found, it should account for maintaining its integrity in a demonstrable, provable way.  The full state should be regularly traversed.

I'm sure those who own the plutocrats measure.  The public should measure too. 

The randomness will moderately damage the value proposition and control that the money interests can exert on representative government, until the fog of war can be lifted.

A senator currently has a 2 year term and a cleanly defined re-election period.  All re-elections happen at the same time.  The end of term should be randomized to be between 6 months and 2 years.  There should be no "cadence".  Nobody should know before-hand when it is done. 

If I were to approach this, I would want a decent simulation proxy for the current state, then I would look at modeling how it responds to perturbations.